What Is the Quantum Theory of Matter? | The Theory of Everything: The Quest to Explain All Reality

Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium shorturl.at/lmqzB 👈 👈
-------------------------------------------
Einstein postulated that light was a particle that retained some of the nature of a wave, and he wasn't far off. He and other legendary scientists like Schrodinger and Bohr led to our understanding of light today. Enjoy their findings in this second part of a two-part video. For the first part, which explains the original wave/particle debate, follow this link: • Is Light a Particle or...
This video is from the series The Theory of Everything: The Quest to Explain All Reality, presented by Don Lincoln
To learn more about the universe, visit www.wondrium.com
00:00 Einstein on the Photoelectric Effect
03:40 Updated Double-Slit Experiment Introduces Conundrum
06:33 The Rutherford Atomic Model
10:42 Bohr Updates Rutherford's Model
14:31 The Schrodinger Equation
16:58 Wave Function and the Copenhagen Interpretation
Welcome to Wondrium on KZbin.
Here, you can enjoy a carefully curated selection of educational videos from our library of history and science series.
If you’ve ever wanted to travel back in time, wondered about the science of life, or dreamt of exploring the stars, then Wondrium will be your new favorite channel!
If you decide you’d like to learn more about what you love, check out the full experience at wondrium.com/KZbin
There, you’ll find in-depth answers to everything you’ve ever wondered, with mind-blowing surprises along the way.
Your brain is going to love this place!
-------------------------------------------
You can also read thousands of articles from the smartest experts in their fields at Wondrium Daily: www.WondriumDaily.com
And, of course, check us out on all of our social channels:
-Facebook: / wondrium
-Twitter: / wondrium
-Instagram: / wondrium
#light #schrodinger #quantumtheory

[@TheZimberto]

This is one of the best videos I've watched on this topic. Thanks!

[@justinnitsuj7041]

the "subject" is narrative. the particle / wave narrative is realm of physics poetry; not physics itself. (not meaning is unimportant, is nearly most important. who cares of odd measures if we cannot make a sensical narrative of what's going on physically using a language besides math)

[@nobunaga240]

Don Lincoln is absolutely top man in explaining very very tricky stuff!

[@ThePaulTM]

Excellent Video Thank You! The rings separating and passing through the slots would work perfect using Quad Step 288 Harmonic Rings.

[@vishatubeful]

one of the best lectures

[@KeithDonegan]

Love this guy, have two of his audiobooks!

[@shashidharshettar3846]

I truly admire your teaching skills😊

[@sene8675]

Good lecture. One side note: It is important not to supplant perplexing with confusing, as the lecturer did at the end of the video. These two words describe qualitatively different situations.

[@JungleJargon]

Things with mass exist in limited distance and slowed down time. Things without mass aren’t limited by distance or time.

[@simesaid]

*The faster you move through space, the slower you move through time.* Yes, massless phenomena aren't constrained by the same rules that massive bodies are. However, they _are_ still constrained. First, all massless entities _must_ travel at the speed of light - not one bit more, not one bit less. And so, no matter how far a photon, say, may travel, or for how long a duration - even a 13.8 billion-light-year expidition across the entire known universe - the photon wouldn't have felt as though a single lousy picosecond had passed... The _only_ reason that we can experience anything at all of the world is because we are massive, largely inertial, bodies falling through a spacetime that is governed by the speed of light - 299,792,458 metres per second. Without this arbitrary constraint there could be no causally related, deterministic interactions between observers. No nuclear fusion in the sun. No homeostasis in cells. No summer road trips with your friends... *Photons are fast, and gluons are too, Matter of fact they're the equal speed champions of the world, But no matter their momentum, or how many mega-parsecs they've travelled Not a single photon, nor a single gluon either, Can remember even the slightest bit of their voyage!* It's about the journey, not the destination. Have a great day! so too are gluons -

[@JungleJargon]

@@simesaid How much acceleration is there if you are between galaxies with the average of all of the black holes around you pulling equally on you? Distance will be greatly expanded due to general relativity in contrast to being greatly contracted near a supermassive black hole and the rate of time will be greatly accelerated in contrast to being greatly slowed down where we are near Sagittarius A. So there is no single measure of distance in the universe and there is no single rate of the passing of time in our universe. Since the speed of light is determined by the measures of distance and time, the varying measures of distance and time will cause the speed of light to vary, which is exactly what gravitational lensing is. The result is that light is traveling faster in between galaxies relative to us where we are near Sagittarius A. Time passes by faster between galaxies and the distances aren’t as far as what they appear to us to be. This is the reason we are able to see distant star light within our known human history of 6,000 years. A day is a thousand years and a thousand years is a day at the same time in the same universe in reality.

[@altrag]

@@JungleJargon > the varying measures of distance and time will cause the speed of light to vary No, that is not true. The light travels at exactly the same speed. What a gravitational body does is warp the space through which light travels, giving it a longer path. The trick is that the longer path is in 4D spacetime, while we can only (directly) observe 3D space. So it can appear to us as if the light is moving slower, but that's just a perception its not a physical part of the system (its not even a relativistic effect as relativity is also defined in 4D spacetime - its purely a visual artifact). Similarly we're often careful to specify the speed of light "in a vacuum" and note that light can be slower in other mediums. But that is also just an artifact (albeit not a purely visual one this time). The light is still moving at the same speed, but because it gets bounced and jostles around by the atoms of the material it again takes longer to actually reach the destination. Not because its truly slower but because its taking a bunch of detours along the way. > within our known human history of 6,000 years Must admit you did a good job of acting like you were trying to learn but didn't have it quite right. Then you go pull a religious nonsense connotation. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but this has no place in any scientific discussion. "God did it" is not and can never be a scientific answer (well unless he decides to make himself known in a measurable way and not just through a countlessly-transcribed and translated copy of some old books). A scientific answer must be falsifiable, and God cannot be falsified (and I'm assuming you wouldn't exactly want God to be falsified either even if it was possible!)

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Things = Mass Time = Zero Mass. Time is not a Physical thing to be slowed. Time is nothing more than a useful measuring tool. Light travels on Earth Gas waves, but not on Mars where there's no Gas Wave, it simply keep a strait line. Einstein's Space do not Bend ! Newton's Gravity is a myth ! Water do not evaporate !

[@johnhuldt]

Great video. Thank you!

[@dansantos3027]

Recently, during the first week of this month of April, I happened to see few KZbin channels showing how to apply few scientific equations invented by Newton and Einstein in relation to space and time. In the same week I also happened to discover new science of mathematics called Tensor. A tensor is a description of multidimensional geometric configuration of the space structure occupied by a body or wave. It took me less than 30 minutes to learn the basics of tensor. Having this new mathematical knowledge, I immediately see the epistemologies behind the equations being popularized by the inventors of the same. I also realize that Albert Einstein owed us all an apology. Why? Because when Einstein learned the concept of tensor from his friend who was a mathematician, he was able to rectify some scientific equations that were developed before him. The concept of tensor was introduced in the scientific community in 1892 by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro, Italian mathematician, and Einstein was just 12 y/o then. So, this is to say that Newton knew nothing about tensor. During Einstein's era, only very, very few people around the world understood tensor. So, Einstein took this opportunity to win the Nobel Prize, because he believed that none of his peers clearly understood what tensor really was. So, kept this knowledge about tensor as his trade secret. So, eventually he rectified Newton's equation for predicting the degree of light bending around the sun, and he won a Nobel Prize for this without crediting Newton. All he did was adding up a missing important component of a tensor. Basically, a tensor = no. of dimensions times the no. of directions. So, a planet tensor = 3x2 = 6; and a light tensor = 2x2 = 4. So, when Einstein learned about Newton's equation for light bending: sigma = 2GM/rc^2, he multiplied the coefficient 2 by 2 to complete the equation. And Einstein renamed the modified equation as a constituent of GR. Einstein also visualized that he could also use the same Newton's equation for developing a new equation for predicting the planet precession. Historically, Newton speculated that light might also behave like particle since he got extensive experience experimenting with light. So, to determine whether the speed of light could be reduced by gravity, he initially formulated the equation sigma = v^2/c^2 just to verify if light direction was bendable. If sigma is equal to unity, then the light direction is not bent; and if sigma < 1, then light is bendable. When Newton realized that light was bendable, all he had to do was to modify his initial equation to make an accurate prediction. Since the reduced velocity of light was not observable, he replaced it by saying that v^2 = GM/r, because the radius of the sun was observable; thus, sigma = GM/rc^2. When Newton realized his prediction was not accurate, he then multiplied his equation by 2, but still not accurate enough, because he knew nothing about tensor. And Einstein took this opportunity to win a Nobel Prize again by developing an equation for predicting the planet precession. So, to avoid being accused of plagiarizing Newton's works as well as to impress the scientific community, Einstein applied the average angular velocity of the planet instead of applying GM by saying that v = 2(pi)L/T. Where, L = semi-major axis; T = orbital period. Since Einstein knew about the tensor of the planet, he then included the tensor in his equation by saying that t = 3x2 = 6 as well as the circular sector by saying that S = pi/(1 - e^2), where e is the eccentricity. So, then we can say that sigma = Stv^2/c^2 = [pi/(1 - e^2)](6)[2(pi)L/T]^2/c^2 = 24(pi^3)(L^2)/(T^2)(c^2)(1 - e^2).

[@dritemolawzbks8574]

Einstein's only Nobel Prize in Physics credited his 1905 paper on the _Photo-electric_ _Effect._ It only requires algebraic and calculus. There shouldn't be a _Principle_ _of_ _General_ _Covariance,_ requiring the laws of physics to be in tensorial and invariant form. Tensor analysis and differential geometry are used to describe his theory of relativity, spacetime curvature, and gravitation. _General_ _relativity_ could be considered the theory with the most difficult mathematics.

[@kostuek]

what the hell are you even smoking mate

[@n0madtv]

Einstein didn't invent relativity either, but he made coherent what other people had directly proposed previously. Even Newton already had equations for what Einstein called special relativity. That is precisely why he didn't get the Nobel prize for either of his relativity theories. None of it was entirely his. But so what? Everyone builds precepts upon precepts from previous generations. That's how learning in general works, not to mention technical evolution over the course of centuries.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

I've always wondered if a photon propagates space in 2-dimensional form and then returns to a 3-dimensional form upon encountering interference. When you reduce a 3-dimensional object down to 2-dimensions, it must compensate for the missing dimension by spreading itself out. This is why the photon "appears" to be in all possible positions when in actuality we're only observing a single reference point of a photon's 2-dimensional propagation. This would also explain why you don't see the "brightness" of light until a photon encounters some type of interference. The question would then be: _"How wide does a 3-dimensional photon become when it's reduced to only two dimensions?"_

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

Now, that's a worthy insight. Dimensional shifting caused by interference. Have you found any source material that led you to this, or was this an epiphany?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@shawnlorenzana2359 *"Now, that's a worthy insight. Dimensional shifting caused by interference. Have you found any source material that led you to this, or was this an epiphany?"* ... It's probably more on the epiphany side. I do a lot of work with Cinema 4D which can simulate photonic effects with extreme precision. If you create a "3D sphere of light," it only looks like a 2D circle on your screen. You don't get the perception of light until you surround the sphere with a fog or other objects (interference). You can also mathematically reduce a 3D object to a zero height while retaining its width and length. I think technology being developed in areas other than science (such as 3D modeling programs) can _"shed some light"_ on the mystery of light.

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

@0-by-1 Publishing LLC Well, all our tech is science based, but I get what you mean. Some breakthroughs are stumbled upon by indirect means. That's a fantastic attribute that you revealed. Our perception of it is incomplete. Light is indeed special.

[@helicalactual]

A wave acting particlelike resolves your problem in the way you resolve. This problem is think of minimum surface tension necessary to create drop of water. There’s a quantized amount. A drop falls from the faucet like a particle.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

The simplest explanation is that light is a wave with particle characteristics as a probabilistic future unfolds photon by photon. This idea is supported by the fact that light photon ∆E=hf energy is continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons. Kinetic energy is the energy of what is actually ‘happening’.

[@kostuek]

"motion" is a macroscopic concept on its own, if one is to abandon it too, then the wave function is not governing the motion, but the causal connection between two events "emit" and "detect". in the macroscopic world we make this connection through motion of a particle or a wave, but it seems its not how it works at the bottom of things

[@stephenzhao5809]

👍thanks a lot sir. I'm here learning and please don't erase my time-marks, like, 2:34 ... 3:05 each photon could knock out an electron and initiated spark. ... so we are left with a truly mind-bending conundrum. .... Young's double slit experiment had proved without a doubt that light acted like a wave, and yet the photoelectric effect showed without a bdoubt that the photon was a particle and since a wave is nothing like a particle and a particle is nothing like a wave that's a huge problem. it's as if the photons were both a wave and a particle. 3:33 6:08 the best regarded explanation is truly hard to get your head around the idea is the motion of photons is governed by waves in fact the waves are thought to describe probabilities and when we detect the particle the wave collapses instantaneously. 6:22 6:40 J. J. Thomson Plum Pudding model 7:13 i911 Ernest Rutherford. 8:13 here's the reason: classical electromagnetism explains in very specific detail what happens when an electric charge is acclerated and if an electron is orbiting a nucleus it's constantly being accelerated towards the nucleus, classical electromagnetism predicts that an acclerated charge will emit electromagnetic radiation basically it gives off electromagnetic energy like radio waves and if the electron is giving off energy then that means it's losing energy and if it loses energy it will spiral down into the nucleus of atom and the whole process will take place in about 16 trillions of a second (1/1.6x10^-13 second). 10:08 Hydrogen absorption spectrum & Hydrogen emission spectrum. 10:46 in 1913 Danish physicist Niels Bohr made an utterly revolutionary suggestion. 12:40 Louis de Broglie (1892 - 1987) ... so while the wave nature of the electron was pretty mind-blowing it did have one very positive aspect it explained the Bohr atom. Bohr's model of the atom had a series of energy levels that were discrete but Bohr's model didn't explain while de Broglie's idea made everything clear. 13:58 the idea is the following if an electron is a wave and it has to fit in an orbit surrounding an atom the wave must then fit in the orbit that means the orbit must be a fixed number of wavelengths. 14:12 14:50 Erwin Schrodinger (1887 - 1961) invent in 1925 what is now called the Schrodinger equation. The sider term describes the particle and its kinematic properties. The H with a hat over it is a way of extracting the energy of the particle and of course the term on the right is the partial derivative with respect to time of the PSI function which if the situation is static is also the energy. This compact equation is the explanation for all of atomic physics and all of chemistry. 15:27 it's worth spending a moment talking about how this equation has such a huge impact on chemistry. draw your attention to this particular symbol the Greek letter PSI, it embodies all of our understanding of the electron in the atomic realm. PSI is what we call a wave function the wave function describes the electron both its location and its energy. If you solve the Schrodinger equation for a free particle which just means a particle in an empty space with no nearby electric fields, the wave eqation is just that a wave wiggling up and down. However in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the wave function talkes on different shapes, stealing some language from the Bohr atom the two lowest energy orbitals are spherical while the third is shaped like a dumbell. A dumbbel higher energy orbital take on an increasingly complicated shapes. But the shapes aren't as important as the physical significance of the wave function. so let's just pick the dumbbell shaped one for purposes of illustration we see the shape here. 18:01 what does it mean? a very good question and one that's still puzzles scientists. it could be that it describes where an electron is, but that doesn't seem to be quite right. 18:13

[@nycest14u2nv]

It's because it's quantum mechanics, basically the building blocks of reality. A lot of people struggle with it. Simply put, the photons behave like a wave (probability actualized) where all "potential" paths the light can take occur simultaneously. Almost like seeing all potential timelines happening at once. When a detector measures this behavior, it goes back to behaving like a single particle and takes a single path. Basically what scientists have been trying to figure out is why the simple act of observing and collecting data on the path of the photon collapses the probability wave and behaves like a singular photon, taking a singular path.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Most of those who saw this video missed out on one account, mentioned only once, that wave collapse to particles when 'observed'. The reason why physicists don't want to mention OBSERVERS is automatic implication of an observer from outside, like cosmic consciousness, who maybe thought of as divine designer. Maldacena is outspoken on this and admit the 'unprovable' reality. This enabled him to conjecture that the whole universe is a QC function, with no known algorithm.

[@rayjasmantas9609]

If looking at light as a particle, the need to have it a little associated with being a wave to is necessary to justify it radiation abilities to its sides.

[@shinoraze]

When was this video recorded???

[@mrdanger4851]

There are many questions I cant find answers to such as 1: does light source matter Ex if it is a candle,sunlight, laser, Florescent, Incandescent, Led and so on 2: Does the material matter that is used in the slit and backboard...Ex Plastic, Cardboard, Metals...Ferrous or Non Ferrous, Glass and so on. 3: Frequency of the light???

[@altrag]

> does light source matter Depends what you're doing with it. Typically though the light _source_ doesn't matter, but the _frequency_ does, so its often most useful to have a light source that can produce a single frequency very accurately. Lasers and LEDs are often used as they have very well-known frequencies, but if you were desperate you could certainly use a candle with an appropriate filter to restrict the frequency - it would be relatively dim and somewhat inaccurate compared to a laser or LED source, but it would work (assuming your candle produces at least some light in the frequency range you need). There are also some experiments where you want the widest range of frequencies possible, so it depends entirely on what you're doing. But even then its usually a situation where the better you can control the range of frequencies, the more accurate your experiment will be. > Does the material matter that is used in the slit and backboard Generally speaking not really, but with some caveats. If the material around the slit is transparent to the frequency of light you're using, then it will of course be close to useless as the light will pass through wherever it wants. You also will generally want your backboard to be reactive with the frequency you're using in some manner that makes the photon strike visible to your measurement apparatus (which could well be just your eyes!) The experiment will still "work" regardless of course, but if you can't tell that it worked its not very useful. > Frequency of the light For the basic double slit experiment, the frequency of light doesn't actually matter. However, you need to design your experiment appropriately if you want to get the best results. That is, the size and spacing of the slits will affect the performance of the experiment. IIRC (and its been a while so you might want to fact check this), the optimal slit size is half the wavelength. But similar to the backboard issue, the experiment will still work even if you do it "wrong", you just might not be able to tell it worked because either too few photons will get through the slits (if the slits are too narrow relative to the wavelength), or so many photons will get through that the bands of the interference pattern overlap and the whole thing just washes out (if the slits are too wide). I believe the spacing between slits is a little more forgiving, but its still not entirely irrelevant (ie: if they're too far apart, the far fringes of the light pattern that actually overlap will be too improbable to see a photon strike, while if they're too close you again get a wash out as you approach the "limit" of the two slits overlapping - equivalent to a single slit). A lot of it just depends on how you want to setup your experiment. And for that matter, what experiment you're doing. I've been focusing on the double slit experiment but there are plenty of other things you can do with light, and the trade-offs and limitations of each experiment will be different when it comes to choosing the frequency (or frequencies) to utilize. And well, a lot of it also depends on practical considerations: What light sources and/or filters do you have available to ensure the frequencies produced? What materials do you have available for the slit wall and the backboard, and how accurately can you machine the slits? Scientists (and physicists especially) like to work in an abstract world where if its _possible_ then its _doable,_ but in reality we have to consider that neither time nor money are infinite resources and those practical consideration often restricts what experiments we can do even when there are no theoretical roadblocks in our way. PS: I realized that I stated frequency both does and doesn't matter. To clarify, that is in two different contexts: Frequency doesn't matter in the sense that all light exhibits the wave/particle duality, so you can pick any frequency you want to work with. However, it matters in the sense that once you've made your choice of frequency, the experiment you build must be built with respect to that frequency for optimal results (technically the wavelength is the important part, but frequency and wavelength are exactly related via W=c/f where c is the speed of light, so effectively the same thing when making such statements!)

[@HenrikScheel_]

Double slit experiment: If you install a mechanism that when powered on observe the particle going through til slit and when powered off it do not observe the particle, will the resulting patterne on the backwall reflects when you power on/off the observing mechanism?

[@kostuek]

yes, the moment you gain knowledge about a particle going (or not going!) through one of the slits, the interference disappears

[@JKDVIPER]

That was awesome too.

[@peterbroderson6080]

The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Gravity is the conscious attraction among waves to create the illusion of particles, and our experience-able Universe. Max Planck states: "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely. We are "It", experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!

[@gacoan_noodle8657]

Instead light if we're for have gotten into 2 categorize.. Category num 1 a part or components for light I think light have nucleus light an element chemistry from what is element to come from .. Example magma have sulfide chemists or any one else planet on our solar system .. But if it's does seen from size frequent this is got have into categorized wave element .. Thanks

[@jimcunningham5376]

Does a solar sail work ? If so why can one not use the same to create a solar wing ?

[@sinebar]

What would happen if we sent gravitational waves through a double slit? Also could gravitons be locked up in gravitational waves the photons are locked up in electromagnetism?

[@alexciocca4451]

I just heard someone say they were going out for a Heisenberg dinner cause it was in certain what to eat nice

[@daylesuess552]

Why is it always a 2 slit experiment. Doesn't the wave function cover all directories. What happens if we have multiple slits all the way around the source?

[@jonbold]

"Wave physics determine how photons travel, but they are detected as particles." That is because light is twofold. A photon is a packet of energy that attaches to the galactic medium that is moving in straight lines without accelerating, at the so called speed of light. The photon is the particle and the medium is all about the wave. Notice that the photon, upon propagation, accelerates to the speed of light but it costs the photon no energy to do so. The photon is simply energizing the medium that is already moving at that speed. Thanks for a great history lesson in Science.

[@matterasmachine]

nonsense

[@jonbold]

@@matterasmachine Thank you. Do you want to hear me repeat the popular drivel or would you like to hear a fresh explanation?

[@matterasmachine]

@@jonbold photon is machine.

[@stephensonal4082]

Nice

[@kennethadkins8432]

Since everything is made of particles, atoms and whatever we use to measure is made of atoms instead of consciousness being what causes decoherence, wave become particle what if it's something to do with atoms or particles being measured by other atoms, particles is what makes it cause wave to turn to particles

[@HardtVonSachs]

Does a particle accelerator only five half the picture then since you can't observe particles in their original wavelength form?

[@luttman23]

the way he turns to the camera XD

[@joshuacornelius25]

05:20 How much does a ton of photons weigh?

[@cpasa798]

What if movement is an illusion? Particles are just manifestations of the quantum field and they just turn on and off. The hole space already has the intrinsic capacity of creating any particle if the surrounding area is forcing to do so. Imagine a single water molecule, it doesn’t move horizontal when the wave passes. You can think the hole universe in the same way

[@mentalmelt]

Great video, but the sound quality is terrible. Something is wrong with your mic.

[@81giorikas]

Pilot waves seem to work, the older physics community doesn't seem to accept it because...it kind of desgraced them. That they couldn't think of it as a simple and easy explanation. Einstein called it cheap. Oppenheimer said we can't stop it let's just ignore it. He was the teacher of the guy who completed the theory.

[@justrosy5]

Light is both a particle and a wave. You can prove that by shining a light bulb attached to the inside of a black-painted box (all sides, including top and bottom, are painted black) that has multiple sections parallel to the side that the bulb is screwed into. Each section is walled off by black painted panels. Each panel has varying vertical slits cut into it. The back panel that forms the inside of the back of the box has film on it. When you set those slits up so that they ought to block particles reaching the back of the box, they do anyway. When you reset them (for a 2nd experiment) so they ought to block waves from reaching the back of the box, they do anyway. There's your proof. Doesn't take a $billion to prove that. Oh, also, you can use this experiment to prove that light emanates in rays shining from a center point, not in "straight, parallel lines" as many people assume.

[@FirestormX9]

That doesn't quite prove the part about particles in this experiment as it is not a sealed or sterilized environment. There are other variables in effect here which may facilitate the hypotheses or results of the experiment. It's not conclusive. Better equipment is required

[@martywollner4128]

Excellent presentation. In the case of photons, this all seems straightforward, until the light has to pass through multiple transparent mediums with varying refractive indexes. For example, when trying to spear a fish, the image of the fish on the surface appears behind the straight-line target path. This is the real mystery of science that nobody can explain!! Here is what happens: -Light moves through the water much slower than through the air. -As demonstrated in this video, the light takes all possible pathways on its way to the eyeball of the spear-fisherman, concurrently. -This includes angles along the actual target line between the eyeball and the fish, and also angles that make the traversal between the fish and the surface shorter. -Note that the direct target line is the shortest possible pathway between the fish and the eyeball. -HOWEVER, although the direct pathway is shorter by distance, the light has to travel through a lot of the water before it hits the surface. -If the light, instead, traversed directly to the surface, then changed angles directly towards the eyeball, that overall route would be farther, however, it would be FASTER than the direct route. -There is an even better angle somewhere in between these two that OPTIMIZES THE OVERALL TRAVERSAL SPEED. I call this "the sweet spot". And somehow, as if by magic, when you look at the surface of the water, the image of the fish appears exactly in the sweet spot. Somehow, the light knows to approach the surface of the water at the best angle so that when it THEN hits the surface and THEN changes angles so that it will THEN hits the eyeball, it occurs in the shortest overall traversal speed. Light actually does this. It is an everyday common occurrence that cannot be explained**. Anyone who owns a fish aquarium knows this. If you think about it, the light is operating in reverse-time ordering. If you paid attention, the speaker mentioned PILOT WAVES. In this example, the pilot wave would take the direct path line between the fish and the eyeball. And even though the light cannot actually traverse this route at the speed of light, the pilot wave does. This also seems like magic, however, this is exactly how electrical fields work, and that is why electricity will begin to flow between to locations at c even though the overall wiring route may traverse through a very long winding. So the pilot wave first detects a potential absorptive target for this photon, and then it waits for any one of the of the concurrent "feeler routes" to arrive. When the first feeler route arrives, the photon then performs another miracle... it instantly "turns off" all of the other in-progress feeler routes. So, the light indeed take multiple POTENTIAL pathways concurrently as it feels out an eventual absorptive target. The first one to arrive is the only one counted... this explains the particle-wave duality and it also explains how the Universe somehow optimizes the overall route to take the shortest traversal time. This is know as THE PATH OF LEAST ACTION. ** The Feynman path integral attempts to explain how light operates in reverse-time ordering. However, if you look into it, they suggest that the entire Universe is one big fat Schrodinger equation, and that somehow, the light knows where it will be heading in the future! That's correct... our current scientific explanation of this everyday occurrence involves the Universe somehow pulsating backwards and forwards in time. Marty, 27-Apr-2023

[@vansf3433]

Light is neither separate particles nor any wave as misunderstood. it is a continuous field, which has no hole at all with all the volume of space filled with connected particles, and all those are always attracted and either absorbed or reflected or released by all forms of matter or mass. Ex, when you turn on and off the light bulbs in your room, all the light from the light bulbs will disappear right away in no time at all because in order to have light, there always has to be a continuous light field from a source of light. Human artificial light can travels from the source to the limited surround space only when a source of artificial light is turned on. After that a light field is formed with connected particles making up the light field , continuously absorbed and reflected, and the light particles keep coming out at a slow speed like the drift speed of electrons in the light bulb's filament, but since there are numerous of l=connected light particles, the number of them is too large to estimate. When the light bulb is turned off, there is no more light particle coming out, and all the left particles are immediately absorbed by all forms of matter which constitute the surrounding. That's why you do not see any trace of light left right as you turn the light bulb off

[@annoyingbstard9407]

😂

[@janklaas6885]

📍10:42

[@DK-ox7ze]

If electrons travel as a wave and collapse as a particle then how do they collapse at different places on the screen to form a wave pattern? It's as if the photons are communicating between each other to form that shape!

[@schmetterling4477]

They don't. ;-)

[@dondattaford5593]

Quantum mechanics also has the ability to reconstruct and change form

[@KieranDevine]

Dr Who said it best, when speaking to Rory. "The Universe is bent like a banana. The Universe is bent like a banana?[asked Rory]. No, no, no; the Universe is nothing at all like a banana. Unless it helps, then yes, it is exactly like a banana. [said Dr Who]" You see, the Universe really is a Hologram, nothing at all like a wave or particle. Unless it helps you understand the Universe. Then yes, light is a particle and or a wave.

[@North_Lights]

I still have qualm with the Einstein idea of light as particle in the photoelectric effect. My proposal is light is still a wave not a particle, but it is the electromagnetic field of light, who frequency, that how the rate of change of filed direction, that is cause of knocking electron out, not a particle of light. Since electrons themselves are electromagnetic field in the quantum field, in order for the photo field to annihilate with electron field or provide the electron field a momentum in the quantum field, the electromagnetic field of of photons has to change it direction and higher the rate higher the momentum. So, it solves the problem of both electron and photon having dual nature, both remains waves.

[@helicalactual]

Is ice water? Seems a little stretch for an equivalence principle, but.

[@RM-zu2nh]

If plasma is a state of matter then, might light be a state of matter and, thus, light would have something to do with a wave and s particle just in case the light had to convert back into its associated mass?

[@helicalactual]

What about if instead of a pilot wave, a wave leaving trails of information that get destroyed by an observer

[@ericphantri96734]

Different kind of light : human ac lighting , DC light difference , sunlight different and space fabric light is in you but you want to master it so darkness master you

[@SpotterVideo]

String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ---------------------------------------

[@PetraKann]

Field

[@KH-rc1fn]

maybe our universe is a wave of non matter,when an observer observes,it becomes material(according to that observer).😮

[@justinnitsuj7041]

"Is light a particle or a wave?" lol is the sun a sound or a smell? Light is a quantum of energy.

[@stevebutrimas9972]

Why is the obvious so incomprehensible, can it be deliberate

[@danieljohnmorris]

The thumbnail’s sentence “How is light a particle or a wave?” doesn’t make sense. Do they mean “Is light a particle or a wave?”, or maybe “How is light a particle and a wave?”

[@googlesucks7473]

Ken Wheeler "...a wave of what"

[@TSeries502]

Thought experiment. Sit on a photon at the sun. How can it possibly travel to your eye in a straight line and what told it to start its journey to your eye in the first place?

[@KiwiandhisKite]

sun emits photons in every direction some of those lines are sent straight to where you happen to be. it’s told to start its journey by the nuclear reaction of atoms within the sun.

[@TSeries502]

@@KiwiandhisKite How can it travel in a straight line if it takes 6 minutes for that photon to start its journey till it reaches your eye if the earth is spinning and orbiting the sun etc etc all at thousands of miles an hour and me asking what told it to start its journey is me referring to the double slit experiment

[@captainzappbrannagan]

There's a new quantum erasor experiment that seems to tell us new answers?

[@ikramjelani8375]

Photon is the name of particles or waves? This is the confusion that is still found today. Confusion among students should be removed

[@schmetterling4477]

We teach in high school that photons are quanta (small amounts) of energy. You were clearly absent on that day. ;-)

[@bloodyorphan]

Just as a side note, what about the magnetic strength ? The prediction says twice the weight in grams (For electro exited materials) , why not state that ?? How far ?? , twice the crystaline structures' size , Right ??. Inverse square is after that, for RF ... Right ?? Standard model of physics stuff, why doesn;t anyone know it in 2023 ?? We built a 300 ton magnet in N.Z. , We started with 50Ton and tortured it to 150Ton Then we activate the coils ang get 300Ton worth of Generator power , been running for 3 years now, and the Old Schoolers still struggle to swallow it ;-) **EINSTEIN**

[@Sirbadone]

How does your class project's proof of basic physical laws prove ignorance across the spectrum of researchers, including this lecturer? Not discussing your current area of study implies ignorance? Why?

[@Sirbadone]

A one pound excited magnetic field could also be produced using the same laws. A tree but not the forest. Btw who's paying for the power required to float a 300-ton magnet, and why? it's just not necessary to hear the answers. It may be obvious or irrelevant, but I wouldn't assume ignorance

[@bloodyorphan]

@@Sirbadone When power engineers who have 40+ years of experience in the industry don't know the answer is why. And proceed to build a 15*10^12 power generator, that has been in production for 3 years is also why. We never needed Plutonium eh M8!

[@kimsahl8555]

Yes - nature tell us a story and another story but NEVER simultaneously.

[@AnilKumar-xl2te]

Light is bright

[@rotatingmind]

Has Don Lincoln become younger? 🤔

[@op_gamer]

Light is a wave

[@Learner..]

Copenhagen interpretation => goosebumps

[@helicalactual]

I still don’t buy or believe in the equivalence principle, i.e. gravity is not the same as acceleration, and maybe similar may be very similar, but it’s not the same. So much so that acceleration will not be a replacement for gravity for structure in space.

[@0987654321mnbvcxzmor]

A photon does not exist until it strikes a detector until then it is a wave so that proves that the photon is a product of matter interaction

[@williamnot8934]

Light is a Photon surfing a Wave.😎

[@JKDVIPER]

Speed is mass. 😛🤛

[@paurushbhatnagar8100]

Light is particle which acted as wave

[@rayagoldendropofsun397]

Light Photons travels on waves only where there's atmospheric gases , this do not happen on Mars !

[@craigfordyce4645]

Photons have distinct SIZE. This accounts for their discreteness in energy.

[@majorhowell1453]

Antigravity will exhaust matter 😮

[@alanhamilton9633]

The king of quantum

[@Featheredblack]

Have physicists considered in the double-slit experiment that the single photons were interacting with themselves? Wait! Before you jump, I don't mean what you're thinking. Not that they "split" and interact with themselves(1 going into the left slit, the right slit, both, and neither), I mean each photon is interacting with the other photon fired before and after it as well... In time. Time doesn't exist for a photon. Neither does space. Each fired photon might be interacting with the past and future, at each moment it is fired.

[@schmetterling4477]

And there is yet another kid who didn't pay attention in science class when they explained what a photon is. ;-)

[@Featheredblack]

@@schmetterling4477 careful not to confuse our observations of how things behave with what they actually are.

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Featheredblack Careful not to give away that you didn't make good use of an education. ;-)

[@Featheredblack]

@@schmetterling4477 assumptive and arrogant. Nice!

[@schmetterling4477]

@@Featheredblack Simply pointing out the obvious. Unless, of course, you were home schooled. In that case the fault is 100% with your parents. ;-)

[@boriskaragiannis]

3:44 not it's not...a particle creates a wave around it ffs

[@private_citizen]

People sure do like to complicate things. Light is a wave of energy which when it hits something produces a photon which bounces off the object the wave hit. This is why you don't see light traveling through the air but only see what it's hitting. Light is not a wave and a particle. Light is a wave which creates particles.

[@TSeries502]

Why cant the photon just br emitting a wave?

[@i-m-alien]

you wait for few days then you will come to know that nature has 3rd----4th----5th------------story also....

[@jedschmed]

How far off am I? I can picture individual photons with rapid undulations - picture little single sperm‘s at light speed going through a slit - one or the other and it’s own reverberations kind of cause a potential wave like refraction with the refraction angle probability sprayed as result bars on the wall - a wave probability.pattern of singularly micro undulations - seminal photons

[@jedschmed]

Thought I’d take a shot. Would the single slot experiment make my theory moot because it wouldn’t produce any wave like effect?

[@jedschmed]

And if you did just do a single slot experiment but changed the distance from the slot wall to the detection board half of a wave length of photon frequency could you determine if it’s reverberations were causing it some wavelike affect even through the single slot?

[@jedschmed]

Could we use Ligo to examine slit experiment sub photon wave length refractive pattern spectrums?

[@innosanto]

Einstein

[@jacadarhome1406]

Photons do not exist. The packets you are measuring are constructive wave interference.

[@qake2021]

👍👍👍😃👏👏👏👏✌️

[@majorrgeek]

This is just another rehash of Quantum theory which is nice but boring, Quantum theory is still developing and things we learn tomorrow cancel things we thought we knew today so nothing is set in concrete - there are options, particle, wave, neither or both or something completely different yet to be discovered - I opt for the latter as most of the maths so far to me seems like an approximation/errors where even the rules of probability break down so, so far all we can be certain of is the spooky nature of things to be learned - on that we can depend

[@hiteshk8758]

So in short we don’t know anything

[@i-m-alien]

so gods representative are========developer of ======youtube----insta---whatsapp==========and many more application================

[@stevebutrimas9972]

There is another explanation

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

Gosh, nothing new here. No, resolutions or revelations? It's just a rehash of old stuff. No breakthroughs or new insights? Not even a philosophical one. Just a "Quantum Mechanics" are here to stay." Randomness. What is randomness? I tell you there's no such thing as randomness. Only ignorance of physical properties. I can't believe that we actually posit ignorance as a property of physics.

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

@Juan Carlos Castro I am not religious. So, I don't even know what a proper response to your statement would be appropriate. Only that your statement was made by you, not your God. Unless, of course, you believe that you are your God. 👀

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

@@juancarloscastro8270 😄 I knew you were one of those guys! So tell me, what's the reason why the wave function collapses when we interact with it? I'll tell you what I think, but you go first.

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

@Juan Carlos Castro, are we really going to get anywhere like this? Can you not deflect the question. You, who just claimed to be some omni.

[@187mako1977]

@@shawnlorenzana2359 I'm interested in your opinion on why the wave function collapses when we interact with it.

[@shawnlorenzana2359]

@@187mako1977 I think it may have something to do with relativity and determinism. From the point of view of light, if you were to ride the photon, time does not exist.

[@jetarocruz6624]

uh science tists are still confused

[@GN-dp7ej]

Sebastian maniscalco is not funny at all. I don’t care if you’re Italian and relate to him, there’s nothing clever or funny to him. Change my mind.

[@alschneider5420]

First, why are you making a video of stuff that has been all over KZbin already. Second, thank you for putting de Broglie up where he should be, his contribution is vastly more important than Bohr.. Third, no one understands quantum phenomena. It is not uncertain, superposition is a joke, and entanglement doesn't exist. In other words, you have no idea what is going on.

[@jacksonnc8877]

You showed him with your data and references for your position well done. What have you contributed to humanity lately 😅

[@alschneider5420]

@@jacksonnc8877 I wrote a number of books expressing my position. I have also published a few papers on the subject. I am in the process of writing a quantum simulation program to reveal the truth of QM. While small, it is the best I can do. Have you read QED by Feynman. If people like you would apply that data, the community would not be in the tizzy it is in.

[@alschneider5420]

@@jacksonnc8877 Furthermore, Einstein SR is extremely. profound. If the community would really understand it, we would be 2000 years ahead of where we are now. All we have now is mathematical descriptions of it. The math just describes an observation of it. SR is real. The big bang is some priests effort to prove god.

[@vincentyang555]

감사합니다. 💜🐢🐚🦋🦜

[@philliptobin3695]

Hi there